Unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic under s.26 Equality Act 2010, and employer liability for it. Driscoll (nee Cobbing) v V&P Global Ltd.
Constructive dismissal; last straw; the final act must contribute to the breach of trust.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Harassment; s.26 EqA; Court of Appeal warned tribunals against 'cheapening' the statutory words of s.26; the unwanted conduct must reach a high threshold of gravity that truly violates dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Harassment; reasonable steps defence; s.109(4) EqA 2010. The tribunal was entitled to find that anti-harassment training given in 2015 had become stale and that refresher training was a further reasonable step, so the employer could not rely on the defence [53]. In judging the steps taken, a tribunal considers how likely they were to prevent harassment and what has happened in practice: brief and superficial training is unlikely to have a substantial or lasting effect [35], [37]-[38]. The likely effectiveness of a further step is a factor in whether it was reasonable, but it need not be more likely than not to prevent the discrimination [39]. An employer who says a further step would have been ineffective bears the burden of showing it [52].
Discrimination; toilets; access policy based on asserted gender identity. Employment tribunal (Scotland), first instance, not binding. The claimant complained that permitting trans women to use the female toilets was harassment, direct and indirect sex discrimination [2]. Harassment failed: the policy was unwanted conduct related to sex, but it had no practical effect on the claimant and it was not reasonable for it to have the proscribed effect, although such a policy could have that effect on other facts [294], [297]. Direct discrimination failed: the comparator was a man whose male toilets were used by a trans man, and the policy applied equally to men and women [306], [318]. Indirect discrimination failed for want of group or individual disadvantage [347], [353]; in the alternative any disadvantage was minor and the policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim [379]-[380]. The respondent had complied with reg 20 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 [240]. Complaints dismissed [382].